310
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

The original exposé describing Trump’s offer to end US efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and end environmental for a billion dollars regulation is here

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 78 points 1 month ago

Like laws and corruption matter if he gets in. It'll be nothing more than a country for sale

[-] SoupBrick@pawb.social 41 points 1 month ago

End goal of Capitalism, tbh.

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago

Didn't the world go through this same scenario about 1500 years ago with the Roman empire?

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

At least they lasted more than 250 years

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 month ago

They would have burned out faster if they had the internet and social media 1750 years ago

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago

They went through nearly constant civil wars and government changes

[-] finley@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

I AM SPARTACUS!

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

At one point even putting the government up for sale

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Well yeah, but we explicitly modeled much of our government after Rome, so it shouldn’t be shocking that we share their problems.

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

I mean, with lobbying, it’s already a country for sale. In this case it’ll just be more blatant and easily accessible to foreign interests

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 month ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


“It certainly meets the definition of corruption as the founding fathers would have used the term,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said in an interview about Trump’s audacious $1bn request for big checks to top fossil-fuel executives that took place in April at his Mar-a-Lago club.

The two senators have written to eight big-oil chief executives and the head of the industry’s lobbying group seeking details about the Mar-a- Lago meeting, as has representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the oversight and accountability committee, who has begun a parallel investigation into the pay-to-play schemes that Trump touted to big oil leaders.

Amplifying those concerns, former Federal Election Commission general counsel Larry Noble said that Trump’s unusually aggressive money pitch “violates the letter and spirit” of campaign-finance laws, and a veteran Republican consultant called it “blatant pay to play”.

“The totality of … Trump, the fossil-fuel industry and a [conservative thinktank] Heritage Foundation blueprint advocate will put a dagger through efforts to avoid catastrophic warming,” said Joe Romm, a senior research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.

Trump’s strong embrace of climate-change denialism and his pro-big-oil policies were underscored by his aggressive $1bn pitch at Mar-a-Lago, which drew CEOs from giants such as Chevron and ExxonMobil, and the fracking multibillionaire Harold Hamm, the founder of Continental Resources, as the Washington Post first reported.

Likewise, Noble, the former Federal Election Commission general counsel, said Trump’s appeals for massive donations from oil and gas bigwigs [are] “pretty blatantly offering policy favors in exchange for large contributions”.


The original article contains 1,403 words, the summary contains 259 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
310 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18073 readers
2963 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS